Propagating the argument further, the other component of the value principle is pain. Raskolnikov may have underestimated the “pain” element involved in choosing this option. I say this because he failed to evaluate all possible negative outcomes. By annotating the life of the landlady as “useless” he is assigning negligible weight to her life. However, the intangible things such as life have their intrinsic value and such qualitative factors should also be considered. He has taken into account only the quantifiable measures, the numerous beings of poor faction and has left out the intrinsic components and other negative consequences. The pain element may not be limited to just the loss of life and can be of a greater magnitude. Raskolnikov’s claim that the old landlady is “necessary to no one” may be biased. He disappoints the principal of impartiality, the decision making matters to her as much as it does to the other people. Hence, her death may father a multitude of other negative consequences which the oversimplified equation conveniently ignores.
Thirdly, it is essential in utilitarianism that all possible alternatives are analyzed and then and only then that alternative must be chosen that causes the maximum pleasure and inflicting the minimum pain: thereby justifying the right action. Raskolnikov’s earnest aim behind killing the land lady was to save “a dozen families from hunger, want, ruin, crime and misery”; let’s just for argument’s sake say; agreed, granted that he had a heartfelt intention: but what about all the other alternatives that had to be analyzed and meditated on? Doesn’t it look pre-meditated of him suggesting killing her without waiting to even consider any other substitute? He could ask the lady for voluntary donation; start a campaign for collection of money by crafting awareness and motivation. These alternatives that I talk about even constitute dire steps such as stealing some money from her and providing for the poor. I mean who isn’t familiar with the unorthodox Robin Hood tactic of distribution of wealth. But considering killing as the only resort? That is too intense. All the other alternatives may have imposed lesser pain in comparison to the choice suggested by Raskolnikov. Hence, it austerely violates the utilitarian concept as he does not consider all available options which could have brought about a reduced pain and could have maximized the value generated.
Now that it has been established the murder contradicts the action principle in utilitarianism, how to defend value? If only the value principle is followed it can lead to dire consequences and the majority can perform any unjust act under the notion of “a greater good”. If killing the lady to provide sustenance to the needy is followed as a rule then all the disadvantaged individuals can group together and kill their landlords to cease their wealth, a situation which absolutely discourages the welfare principle which utilitarianism holds in reverence. This will then initiate a vicious cycle whose costs in terms of loss of life, absolute lawlessness and anarchy will outweigh its potential benefits. The entire world will be like Wild West once again. Using Raskolnikov’s argument many unwarranted deaths can be justified under the guise of the greater good. For instance, if there be a hundred starving individuals subsisting on scarce resources, according to this equation, by killing half of the individuals the other half may be able to live a better life. Even worse, killing each successive man would make the life of the other one better and hence a loop will be created till only one man is left to profit from the wherewithal. Is this the kind of message he is attempting to universalize? Because utilitarianism venerates only those actions applicable to anyone anywhere and this hardly qualifies that condition. Thus, when adopted as a rule this argument fails to provide an overall net positive value and hence a true utilitarian will disagree with Raskolnikov’s act.
In conclusion, it is pretty evident that the notion which utilitarianism after evaluating Raskolnikov’s position imparts is that certainty of the outcome holds supreme importance. Raskolnikov just cannot steal someone’s right to live because she has money and others may need it. How happy is she living with all that wealth and disposing it off however she chooses? Does he know that? He doesn’t. Also, impartiality is the essence of the decision you make, the way he puts it, “evil-minded, sulky old woman”, bias emanates out of every fragment of word he uses to describe her. It is a big decision, to take someone’s life. And unless you are absolutely sure, just don’t decide which lives to take too soon and which to let live till late.
64%
The structure of your essay is clear, and it seems that you have put effort into writing it. But in some places, you’ve compromised on important philosophical details of your position in the interest of saying things elegantly. It’s either that, or you are not entirely clear about some of the key issues. For example, look at my comments above about rights and respect for persons. Rights have no place in consequentialist ethics, but in the final paragraph you seem to suggest that the question of the old woman’s rights can be addressed by looking at a different question of whether she is happy etc.
The issue of certainty of consequences: well, what about expected value calculations?
Your referencing format needs to accurate and consistent.
Works cited
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. 1866. 53-54. Print.
Mautner, Thomas. "Utilitarianism." Utilitarianism : Past, Present and Future. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://www.utilitarianism.com/ruleutil.htm>.
Mill, J.S. Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn: London, 1863
Referencing format?
Simplify, in the interest of achieving more clarity.
amber riaz
“can this act be justified as right?”
amber riaz
Say instead ‘that is’.
amber riaz
But are the pleasures experienced by the old woman and those by homeless families even comparable on the same scale?
amber riaz
But isn’t life a good, according to utilitarianism?
amber riaz
Explain this point about negative consequences .
amber riaz
But what is an unjust action, according to consequences? For doesn’t the determination of whether an act is just dependent on the consequences, according to consequentialism?
amber riaz
So are you arguing for a different version of utilitarianism or against utilitarianism?
amber riaz
The point you raise here doesn’t seem to be just about net value – for a utilitarian has no problem agreeing that an action with negative value is wrong – but about the intrinsic worth of certain things other than utility, the rights of people, respect for persons and so on that utilitarianism can’t accommodate.
amber riaz
See previous comment. What place does rights have within consequentialism? If your point is that this is an important weakness of consequentialism, say that clearly.
amber riaz